The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-09-18
A LITERARY CONTROVERSY
MIR. Maurice Thompson Defends Himself
Against the Abuse of Boston Paper.
He Is Personally Friendly to Mr.. Howells. but
Dissents From His Opinions-A Vigorous
Assault Upon Impure Foreign Literature.


Of his editorial position Harper's Magazine
to Systematically eulogize certain foreign nov
slists, the moral tendency of whose works is
more than questionable, has occasioned much
surprise in literary circles. The wonder at the
sngularity of his Judgment deepened to in
digDation when by way OF Strengthening his
position he exalted French and Russian writer's
At the expense of English and American authors.
The panegyrics lola and Tolstoi led not to
implied but to direct disparaeement of all other
novelists, however celebrated. Mr.. Howells's ad-
miraton for the realistic in fiction is apparently
binding him to the defects of it's best opponents
and to the merits Of the writer's of the
other school. These peculiar opinions
have excited quite controversy,
nearly all the leading literary periodicals hav-
ing taken some part in the discussion. No
writer, however, has so vigorously criticized the
views of Harper's editor Mr.. Maurice Thomp-
son. and no other has made SO strong a defense
of pure literature Mr. Thompson, it will he
rememb ered. treated of this subject in hls ad-
dress before the Association Of Western Au-
thors held in this city in June. Later. be dis
cussed it more fully in the New York Independ-
ent and more recently in the Boston Literary
World. The last issue of the Literary World
takes up his article an makes an editorial at
tack upon the writer, charging him with being
actuated by motives of personal hostility in his
criticism of Mr.. Howeils. To those who have
followed the discussion, this charge seemed I'M
called for and upjustifiable and a Journal
represen tative, meeting Mr.. Thompson at the
State Biologists rooms, asked il ne did not so
regard it.
YES" he replied, 'the Boston Literary
World msrepresented me at almost every point
In its long editorial attack In the first place,
did not criticise Mr.. Howells. l criticised his
criticisms nothing / certainly made
Il u
ally, of Mr. Howells The last time saw him
we parted at the threshold of my home the very
best of friends, and still am his warm friend.
but do not like his attitude and mis- utterances
a critic, and / am frank enough to say so. and
do not think that Mr.. Howells will sustain the
Literary World in it's personalities
The main point urged against mo by the
Worlds editor is that did not tell the truth
when l said that Mr. Howells belittled American
novests in order to praise Russian ones. What
Mr. Howells did say this: 1t is long
step to descend from them (the Russian novel
ists) to American fiction; one holds ones breath
and looks anxiously to see If there is really any
footing down there If this is not studiously be-
littling American novelists aud exating Russian
novelists, then have misrepresented Mr.. How
ellis, though this is mere flake of the cold Rus
sian snow he has been heapng upon the dead
level of American achievement"
do you regard the charge made by the Boston
paper of sufficient Importance to call for a
Eyes, but the Literary World has refused to
publish my reply. The truth is. it could not
behind its privilege of declining to print my
article, which was unanswerable; but in the
same issue it filled page with abuse Of me-"
did you reflect in any way upon Mr.. Howells's
honesty OF purposes"
81 did not say or intimate that Mr.. Howells
was insincere, but did say as plainly as I
could that his critical opinions, as SUCH were
wholly without value l based this upon a
great many positive opinions and dicta in his
critical writings, and may quote the following,
as they now come TO my mind:
speaking of an American woman's novel. he
says There Is moral sense in the story very
uncommon in women's novels This, too, When
he had just been pzai sin ..sseha siatay brptaf
storiesas Dostoievsky's Crime and it's Punish
menf and Tolstoi's interminabIe history of
intrigue called Anna kareyina! Now, when
an American critic in one breath speaks OF a
lack of moral sense in womens novels and in an
other breath praises the moral power OF a novel
whose hero is a low brutal, debauched murderer.
and whose heroine is a professional scarlet wom-
an, l deem him unsafe critic for
people to stand by, and !! do not hest
tate to say But again, in speaking
of Henry James and his novels. Mr. Howells
said that fiction of to-day is "a finer art than
1t in the days of Dickens and Thackeray.
and that the 'Mannerism of Dickens would
not be tolerated nowadays. and intimated that
the great English novelists were as nobody com
pared with the croquet and luncheon party novel
lists of to-day OF Dickens Christmas Stories he
says The pathos appears false and strained,
the humor largely horse play, the characters
theatrical, the joviality pumped and
But he never tires of praising Zola's siren 9Th
and Gogols realism and Tolstois moral
ity and Dostoivsky's truth lfe Not
no praise 'f for '' Mrs. " Stove owe '' not
an allusion to General Wallace; no admring ref
erence to Aldrich. Hale, Eggleston; no
high place for Cable, Mrs. Burnett, any,
body else in America, or England or France
no praise for Sir Walter Scott, or Bulwer, or
Hugo, or Goethe-no praise for any person, in
deed, save the Russians! Yes, he did praise one
novel by American, Mr.. Henry James's
ciety story entitled, The Princess Casamessi-
ma" in unqualified terms; ne says he can lind
no wi ia Rntv we
must remember that this novel is not American.
Mr.. Howells never praises American novel,
not even Hawthorne's, in such terms OF
course Mr.. Howells is sincere aud honest. but he
is gravely at fault, all the same. a critic, and
it will be bad for American literature if his
opinions shall be taken authoritative"
You do not find fault with him as a novelist,
theng'
mo. So long as Mr.. Howells is content to
give us his bright, light. humorous novels, just
as they are. without any bosh about
the uncomfortable greatness of Russian fiction
and the comparative worthlessness of Amer
lean fiction, he Is clever and Interesting,
but by no means great. His stories are pure;
they are daintily. often charmingly told. but
there is not much in them indicative of strength
of imagination. breadth of purpose or deep in
sight. They slight, almost frivolous, and
deal with the most commonplace situations and
with people that one doesn't care much about.
STILL Mr. Howells has fine genius and a genial
humor aud he never fails to write we'll"
Your objection Is merely to his literary opin-
ions, thenP
OF admiration for anything in fiction outside of
mere reproduction CT observable life He
would have a novelist mere keeper of memo
randa, a mere photographer, maker of cata-
logues. The influence of his criticism will.
II submitted to- lower every standard of
fiction making in our country and lead US to en-
brace the raw. realism of the Rus
SLAMS and the lola school of France. l stand
TOR rounding an American literature upon Amer
lean NE, thought, manners and aspirations.
| believe IN American genius, in Amer
lean tendencies. in American possibilities.
In American supremacy in America. 1t
does not make me dizzy looking down for
place upon which our literature may stand. Mr..
Howells IS himself shining instance of a poor
Ohio boy who has carved for himself safe
standing-pl place. much safer than Tolstois or
Zolas. and look and salute him 1t does
require that shall deny him his well-earued
fame and mis- beautiful genius when | refuse to
accept his critical judgments. is it personal
defamation of him for me TO say that his teach